IT IS about to stage the second half of an election that promises to cement
its young democracy into place. But in some ways, Indonesia still shows little
sign of bringing its armed forces to heel. Barring a volte face from the Supreme
Court, a tribunal prosecuting alleged human-rights abuses carried out during
East Timor's referendum on sovereignty in 1999 has now ended the predictable
way, with no soldiers or police being punished. Of the 16 members of the
Indonesian security forces and two East Timorese civilians who were indicted,
all the Indonesians have either been acquitted or freed on appeal (the quashing
of the convictions of the final four was announced on August 6th). The two East
Timorese have received minimal sentences: one got three years, the other, after
appeal, five.

As far as Indonesia's government is concerned, the matter should now be
closed. Many outside Indonesia are unlikely to concur. During and after the
referendum, in which the former Portuguese colony voted to obtain independence
from Indonesia, about 1,500 civilians were killed, many more forced to flee and
much of the infrastructure destroyed.

The inadequacy of the tribunal in Indonesia is highlighted by the contrast
with a parallel investigation being conducted in East Timor itself by the
Serious Crimes Unit set up by the United Nations. This body has indicted some
375 people and secured more than 50 convictions. Most of those convicted are
militiamen who say they were acting under the orders of the Indonesian armed
forces. About 280 indictees remain at large in Indonesia. They include the
Indonesian commander at the time, General Wiranto, for whom the unit has issued
an arrest warrant.

After the announcement of the appeal decision in Jakarta, human-rights groups
renewed their demands for the creation of an international tribunal. So far,
however, America is the only major power to have stated publicly its desire to
see "a credible level of justice". East Timor itself, eager to
maintain healthy relations with its vast and powerful neighbour, opposes the
idea of an international tribunal. Indeed, the government has refused to forward
General Wiranto's arrest warrant to Interpol.

The apparent impossibility of holding Indonesia's security forces to account
may eventually create frustration. This week, the head of special forces was
cleared over shooting demonstrators in 1984. The former head of the Jakarta
military police was also cleared of failing to prevent the torture of 170
civilian prisoners, following a protest the same year. The judges declared the
beatings were only "ordinary" rights abuses.

Attention will turn next to the government's response to a report by the
national human-rights commission, leaked this week. It alleges that members of
the security forces perpetrated gross human-rights abuses in 2001 and 2003 in
the eastern province of Papua. The situation in Aceh, on the northern tip of
Sumatra, is equally troubling. Despite the lifting of martial law in May, after
a year of fighting against separatists, military operations continue. In recent
weeks, the army has reported a big rise in the death toll. It claims that the
victims are insurgents, but independent observers say this is hard to verify.

Meanwhile, the armed forces are pushing for a military bill to be rushed
through parliament. In its present form, critics say, the proposed bill will
make it harder to turn the army into a truly professional force after a long
history of involvement in politics. The country's generals have won justified
praise for remaining neutral during this year's elections. You might think they
could show a greater willingness to contemplate reform when their interests are
being so well protected elsewhere.

--

The Dominion Post (Wellington, New Zealand)

August 13, 2004, Friday

EDITORIAL

Timor deserves global justice

INDONESIA'S decision last week to overturn the convictions of 16 security
officers for crimes against humanity has been greeted with resigned despair by
those who have followed the struggles of East Timor. Perhaps the real surprise
was that the 16 Indonesians were ever convicted. Indonesia's record in bringing
down plausible judicial verdicts, and then honouring them, is far from proud.

Historically, governments in New Zealand and Australia also have a less than
honourable record on Timor. Though successive administrations had no faith in
the ability of Timorese to govern themselves, government positions were
influenced far more by a desire to keep on the right side of Indonesia. The
populous nation is the closest Asian neighbour of Australia and New Zealand and
Australia, in particular, has long considered it both a potential threat and an
important economic partner. The relationship with Indonesia, more than anything
else, was responsible for official indifference, little short of connivance, to
the occupation of Timor.

It is inconceivable that at the time Portuguese colonial rule of Timor was
coming to an end in 1975, Australia at least did not foresee that the Timorese
were about to have one occupying power replaced by another. But the bloody
annexation of Timor by Indonesia, which included the killing of five journalists
-- one a New Zealander -- was greeted at official level with dismay rather than
outrage. Successive New Zealand governments deplored the use of force, but
acknowledged Indonesia's claim to East Timor was irreversible. In 1977, New
Zealand's acting prime minister Brian Talboys said New Zealand understood the
security reasons for Indonesia's "intervention" in Timor, and
recognised Indonesia was in control. Much later, in 1994 -- on the eve of the
departure of a multi-party delegation of New Zealand MPs to Indonesia and Timor
-- then foreign affairs minister Don McKinnon said concerns about human rights
would not lead to a change in government policy, which was that human rights in
Timor was a separate issue from New Zealand's relationship with Indonesia.

A small but vocal pro-Timor group, sometimes including the mother of a New
Zealand student killed in the 1991 Dili massacre, kept the issue alive in New
Zealand till Timor's pro-independence vote in 1999 sparked a wave of retaliatory
violence in which Indonesian militia are estimated to have killed more than 1000
people. That in turn sparked the United Nations peacekeeping force in which
Australia and New Zealand at last played significant roles in supporting
Timorese independence.

Special tribunals were established two years ago in Indonesia to try police
and army officers accused of crimes against humanity. It was the convictions
from those trials that have now been overturned. Foreign Affairs Minister Phil
Goff is right to call for an international tribunal. Indonesia has shown it
cannot be trusted to hold trials and punish the alleged perpetrators of the 1999
wave of violence, which included murder, torture and rape. An international
tribunal may not be the best way to bring accountability but it is the only
option left. Not to act is tantamount to condoning the slaughter. The
international community's history of doing just that in East Timor should be
over.

--

Arab News

Friday, 13, August, 2004 (27, Jumada al-Thani, 1425)

Editorial: A Dismal Record 13 August 2004 —

Indonesia's armed forces have played a pivotal role in the country’s
development since independence. In many instances, such as Indonesia’s
hydrocarbon resources and the long term LNG supply deals to Japan, the military’s
influence if not control, has been beneficial. In other cases such as the 1976
invasion of East Timor a year after its independence from the Portuguese,
military meddling proved disastrous.

There is now considerable international disquiet that senior army officers
convicted of serious crimes during the last period of the 22-year occupation of
East Timor, have had their convictions quashed. There is equal concern that a
few days later, a judge ruled that the former head of the special forces had no
case to answer when troops under his command fatally opened fire on
demonstrators 20 years ago at Jakarta’s port city of Tanjung Priok. These are
only the latest in a long series of overturned convictions and thrown out cases
in which the accused have been members of the Indonesian armed forces.

Outsiders may assume that the majority of these apparently perverse rulings
reflect the continuing power of the military within Indonesian society. This
analysis does not however go far enough. Most of the country’s civilian
political leaders today come from military families. The majority of Indonesia’s
wealthy elite has some connection with the armed forces that effectively ruled
the country first under President Sukarno and then Suharto. Though the military
has its own groups and rivalries, Indonesia’s military-connected families do
tend to come together on issues that threaten the reputation of the army, navy
or air force.

This explains why though the government in Jakarta could appreciate the
uselessness and injustice of continuing the occupation of East Timor, especially
in the face of a rising tide of international anger, they refused to recognize
that the damage that atrocities committed by both the military and ethnic
Indonesian militias, was also sullying the country’s name. It was only with
great reluctance that the authorities agreed to investigate some of the most
serious allegations. The trials have been the outcome and they themselves have
ended up in acquittals (which may be perfectly legitimate) or quashed
convictions or stopped trials which even if justifiable have given a powerfully
negative impression to the outside world. Thus after the savage repression of
East Timor, the brutal murder of suspected rebel sympathizers, the rapine and
the looting and destruction of much of the capital Dili shortly before Jakarta
pulled out, only two people, both militiamen, are currently being punished and
they also may well soon have their convictions quashed.

Such a dismal judicial record is inexcusable. These crimes took place. But
only two guilty findings remain standing. It is absurd that many others have not
been brought to book and scandalous that those who have are effectively let off.
Indeed it sends entirely the wrong message, not only to the international
community but also to those parts of this huge and diverse country that are
themselves seeking greater autonomy or even independence.